Details here: YouTube Experiments with High-Quality Video - PC World (http://www.pcworld.com/article/154318/youtube_experiments_with_highquality_video.html)

Well I think they missed the boat on this big time. Anyone with decent 720p footage is now well used to posting it on Vimeo etc. and that has the added advantage that you don't have to wade through all the low resolution "dross" that YouTube seems to attract to find it on those other sites.

It will be very interesting to see if this takes off - with the might of Google behind it it could just happen (eventually). Will it kill Vimeo, I doubt it (at least not yet).

The YouTube "high definition" version looks slightly worse in that I have to play both several times to search for artifacts. It's not like one looks like NatGeo HD and the other doesn't. We could assume that "Dancing Matt" (grand concept and delivery. Incredible!) uploaded the same files to both YouTube and Vimeo. Vimeo looks slightly better with softer/fewer compression artifacts and better color. I've put this links in this post for your convenience:

YouTube Experiments with High-Quality Video - PC World (http://www.pcworld.com/article/154318/youtube_experiments_with_highquality_video.html)
Where the Hell is Matt? (2008) on Vimeo (http://www.vimeo.com/1211060?pg=embed&sec=1211060)

Vimeo could offer even higher quality downloads 10-35 MBps with 720p30, 720p60, 1080p30 and 1080i60, and they could just grade and charge their user accounts by monthly download bandwidth. I just noticed the Download Original file all the way at the bottom of the page. That is great for distribution. Vimeo recommends that the files be H.264-compressed to 3 MBits/second and 720P - not enough for a great full screen HD experience. If you upload a 7MBps video, does Vimeo recompress to 3MBbps? I can't tell.

I'd be willing to continue paying the Vimeo Plus subscription rate of $60/year to offer something significantly better than YouTube.

Download original file only works for people registered on Vimeo. People not logged in can't download it.

None of this gets over the rights issues:

If you upload a file to you tube you give away all your rights!

They can sell it charge people to download it and make programmes about the clips and you get nothing.

Their days are numbered as decent streaming becomes more available why would you give away all your copyright when you could do it yourself?

See out IPTV site (still in test mode) for a hint of the future: iNorthEast.tv (http://www.iNorthEast.tv)

Gary,

The answer as far as Youtube is concerned is search and linking, two things streamed IPTV does extremely badlly. The point about Youtube and to lesser extent Vimeo is that it gives you a huge potential audience. How you grow some virally can be more important than the delivery technology.

I take your points about copyright however.

Dan

If you upload a file to you tube you give away all your rights!


Really? I'm sure most people do not understand that! Do you know whether if you remove your video from there site they lose that copyright again? Also, you are just giving them permission to use the videos, correct? Not completely transferring over ownership?

Isn't it the same with Vimeo? Or not giving away your rights but they have full rights to it as well?

I prefer Vimeo over youtube's interface myself but it's hard to match the sheer amount of videos (quality and non quality) that youtube has.

all the more reason to go HD when selecting a camera...

Vimeo recommends that the files be H.264-compressed to 3 MBits/second and 720P - not enough for a great full screen HD experience. If you upload a 7MBps video, does Vimeo recompress to 3MBbps? I can't tell.

I've downloaded a number of my own Vimeo clips by grabbing them with Orbit. The files are indeed smaller, and the bitrate varies from 1.3 to 3 MBps. All of the files I uploaded were 5 MBps H.264.

You can find three screen grabs of a video here:
Index of /Images/Tests/Vimeo (http://tinyurl.com/6pdzl8)

These are PNG screen grabs using VLC Media Player to play the file. "ORIG" is from the 5 MBps H.264 file I uploaded to Vimeo. "Vimeo FLV" is a grab from the FLV file I leeched using Orbit. Bol1 is a title, and notice the blockiness in the gradient. Bol2 shows excessive noise on the baby's face and other lower tone areas. Yes, the subject is not in focus as he is too close to the camera. Bol3 shows lots of noise on the baby's face and brown outfit. Notice how the background wall texture is not noisy. This scene involves a baby sliding down the stairs, so he's in motion. Also, notice the flatter colors in the FLV.

Really? I'm sure most people do not understand that! Do you know whether if you remove your video from there site they lose that copyright again? Also, you are just giving them permission to use the videos, correct? Not completely transferring over ownership?
Section 6.C of the YouTube Terms of Use (http://www.youtube.com/t/terms?locale=en_US):

For clarity, you retain all of your ownership rights in your User Submissions. However, by submitting User Submissions to YouTube, you hereby grant YouTube a worldwide, non-exclusive, royalty-free, sublicenseable and transferable license to use, reproduce, distribute, prepare derivative works of, display, and perform the User Submissions in connection with the YouTube Website and YouTube's (and its successors' and affiliates') business, including without limitation for promoting and redistributing part or all of the YouTube Website (and derivative works thereof) in any media formats and through any media channels. You also hereby grant each user of the YouTube Website a non-exclusive license to access your User Submissions through the Website, and to use, reproduce, distribute, display and perform such User Submissions as permitted through the functionality of the Website and under these Terms of Service. The above licenses granted by you in User Videos terminate within a commercially reasonable time after you remove or delete your User Videos from the YouTube Service. You understand and agree, however, that YouTube may retain, but not display, distribute, or perform, server copies of User Submissions that have been removed or deleted. The above licenses granted by you in User Comments are perpetual and irrevocable.

I went and read Vimeo's as well. Which is almost word for word the same. So unless you are hosting your own video, it doesn't look avoidable.

Not all agreements are like that.. Here is one from Blip.tv which is the service I use right now. They give you a good bit of control over your distribution choices.

I know this TOS might look the same but look at the one word here I found missing in most other services TOS - REVOCABLE. This is important.

The full text can be found here - blip.tv terms of service (http://www.blip.tv/tos/)

From Blip:

When you upload or post content to Blip.tv, that content becomes public content and will be searchable by and available to anyone who visits the Blip.tv site. Blip.tv does not claim ownership of the materials you post, upload, input or submit to the Blip.tv site. However, by posting, uploading, inputting, providing or submitting your content to Blip.tv, you are granting Blip.tv, its affiliated companies and partners, a worldwide, revocable, royalty-free, non-exclusive, sub-licensable license to use, reproduce, create derivative works of, distribute, publicly perform, publicly display, transfer, transmit, distribute and publish that content for the purposes of displaying that content on Blip.tv and on other Web sites, devices and/or platforms. Content that you upload to Blip.tv will generally be available to the public in RSS feeds designed to allow for the automatic syndication of content throughout the Web — Blip.tv is an open platform and designed for the free exchange of content and ideas.

We have several great in depth threads about what the Youtube TOS actually means to the average user. Let's keep this thread on track about Youtube HD please.

It'll be interesting to see where YouTube goes with HD. I thought I'd make some comparisons with Vimeo though.

Vimeo:
Vimeo allows only 1 HD upload per week with 500MB cap unless one pays $60 for 2GB cap per week and no number of HD uploads limit.
Vimeo HD is 720p24 so if source is 720p30 or p60, I've seen frame rate conversion issues (not sure if PAL folks uploading p25 see with their source).
Vimeo downloads are exactly what I upload so I'm not sure what others are saying here. The Flash playback is certainly compressed but my H264 sources downloads are my original file.
Although Vimeo has a total file size cap they have no duration limit.
Vimeo 720p24 files can play at the full 1280x720 size (don't forget to turn OFF scaling when going to full screen).
I believe Vimeo's HD data rate is somewhere between 1500-1800kbps.

YouTube:
YouTube has a 10 minute duration limit.
YouTube has a 1GB file size cap but no weekly caps on files or cumulative size.
The blog doesn't make some things clear so I wonder if people can test:
YouTube HD would only be really useful if it allowed 1280x720 playback.
Would YouTube HD encodes playback at full NTSC (29.97) and PAL (25fps) frame rates?
What would YouTube's HD data rate be?
Would YouTube optionally allow the uploader give the viewer the ability to download the source as Vimeo does?
YouTube analytics blows the doors off of Vimeo if you need to analyze viral distribution.

Some more comments:
I think YouTube could easily put Vimeo out of business depending on where YouTube goes with HD (that's a BIG DEPENDS though). Vimeo would be left with the advantage of no duration limit though. Vimeo went to a annual fee model because the advertising was not supporting them

YouTube is also GoogleVideo which is an odd relationship. GoogleVideo has no duration limit has a download feature (but those are compressed) and is now implementing YouTube's analytics.

Exposureroom seems to have none of the limits Vimeo has. There's no file size limit. Their service is free. I'm not sure what their business model is given I don't see much advertising.

Vimeo downloads are exactly what I upload so I'm not sure what others are saying here. The Flash playback is certainly compressed but my H264 sources downloads are my original file.

Thanks for the detailed info, Craig. Vimeo told me their compression is 1.6 MBps VBR, though I assume that is the average bitrate. I've asked them for their minimum and maximum rates.

The downloads I'm referring to are FLV "Grabs" by the Orbit video streaming grabber program which allows you to collect the video stream from YouTube, Vimeo, others. I used this to compare video quality. Play both your original and the grabbed" FLV in VLC Media Player so you can save screen shots to a PNG file for easy comparison.

What would YouTube's HD data rate be?
I have downloaded the YouTube HD video which the PC World article linked to. Nero ShowTime reports the video stream bitrate when playing as being from under 1 megabit to ~5 megabits, with a ~14 megabit spike near the beginning. The video stream is AVC Level 5.1. The audio is AAC two channel; it's also VBR. I didn't pay as close attention to the audio bitrate, but it is fluctuating above and below 200 kilobits/second.

And it's a 30p file, so it appears YouTube supports HD frame rates other than 24p.

Gints, 1.6Mbps VBR seems right since I've seen numbers from 1.5 to 1.8Mbps for Vimeo HD.

Christopher, while 1Mbps would be OK (actually low for 720p IMHO) numbers close to 5Mbps and certainly 14Mbps spike would be rough for some people. Of course even 1Mbps is wasted if they're keeping the picture so small.

Personally I'd like to see about 2.5Mbps for HD which would have enough room for fast action. At least my area that speed is still below DSL for all but the lowest level. DSL in my area is 3Mbps - 8Mbps, Cable is 10Mbps - 30Mbps give or take. There's still some "budget" DSL at 768kbps and 1.5Mbps but those are becoming rarer in my area.

The downloads I'm referring to are FLV "Grabs" by the Orbit video streaming grabber program which allows you to collect the video stream from YouTube, Vimeo, others. I used this to compare video quality. Play both your original and the grabbed" FLV in VLC Media Player so you can save screen shots to a PNG file for easy comparison.
Did you download the 73 megabite MP4 high definition file from YouTube, and not the lower quality FLV "HQ" file?

There are three video files that can be downloaded from YouTube for the Where is Matt video.

1. Standard quality—320x180, Sorenson H.263 video codec, VBR up to at least 700 kilobits/second, MP3 audio codec at 64 kilobits/second (single channel). FLV container. Filesize for Matt video is 11 megabites.

2. HQ quality—480x270, Sorenson H.263 video codec, VBR up to at least 1.5 megabits/second, MP3 audio codec at 96 kilobits/second (single channel). FLV container. Filesize for Matt video is 32.7 megabites.

3. HD resolution—1280x720, H.264/AVC Level 5.1 video codec, VBR up to at least 5 megabits/second, AAC audio codec, VBR up to at least 270 kilobits/second (2 channels). MP4 container. Filesize for Matt video is 73.5 megabites.

Gints, 1.6Mbps VBR seems right since I've seen numbers from 1.5 to 1.8Mbps for Vimeo HD.

Christopher, while 1Mbps would be OK (actually low for 720p IMHO) numbers close to 5Mbps and certainly 14Mbps spike would be rough for some people.
Again, that is VBR. The 14 megabit spike was for a split second. I'm not sure exactly what the average would be for the rest of the video, but from the numbers I saw 2.5-3.0 megabits may not be too far off.

Of course even 1Mbps is wasted if they're keeping the picture so small.
Very true. I'd say YouTube needs to work on their viewing options for HD resolution. If nothing else, there's currently the full screen option.

And YouTube Full Screen mode goes to 1920x1080 on my monitor. There's no way to turn scaling off to see 720p on the HD clip. 2.5Mbps wouldn't be bad if you could actually view it at 720p. It didn't look like an H264 encode at 2.5Mbps even scaled to 1080.

And YouTube Full Screen mode goes to 1920x1080 on my monitor. There's no way to turn scaling off to see 720p on the HD clip. 2.5Mbps wouldn't be bad if you could actually view it at 720p. It didn't look like an H264 encode at 2.5Mbps even scaled to 1080.
Try this link at the full screen option (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zlfKdbWwruY&fmt=22). Is there any difference?

Yes, that's exactly what I did. I added &fmt=22 and went full screen and my first response was bleh! The titles look sharp there's significant issues. Camera shake is tough on a codec and this doesn't handle it well at all. Solids (or maybe the subtle gradients within) look bad too. Lots of areas look softer than they should at that data rate. Don't forget it's being scaled to 1920x1080 on my system though but It still wouldn't be great at 720.

Look at some of the Vimeo HD videos posted by DVInfo users at full screen (720p scaling). Even some of the more challenging source material holds up well. I believe Vimeo is still using On2VP6 Flash and H264 should be as good if not better and yet YouTube looks worse. Not all H264 is created equal though. These days MainConcept's codec is the best with Dicas very close behind. Apple's isn't that great by comparison although Compressor does multipass encodes (more than 2). Maybe YouTube is only doing a single pass encode? It doesn't look good though at full screen.

Double Post deleted.
Hmm first post gave me a browser error so I tried again and didn't even get the double post warning.

I uploaded a 2 minute trailer to YouTube about 6 months ago and, after reading this thread, decided to check it out by adding "&fmt=22" to its address.

It stood up surprisingly well when I went to full screen. Some of the smaller letters on the titles were noticeably "blocky", the very first shot was captured in SD (so not a true test), but all of the following shots, which were originally captured in 720p24 looked very, very nice.

The trailer clip that I originally uploaded was about 74 MB and the compression I'd applied was done with Apple's Compressor using the "H.264 for Apple TV" preset, which has the description "H.264 1280x720 video @ 5Mbps". I also added letterbox bars on top and bottom to bring it to a 4:3 aspect ratio (as earlier experience showed me that YouTube would otherwise stretch 16:9 footage to a 4:3 box).

The HD version downloaded from YouTube was about 34 MB, so YouTube had further compressed it by a bit over 50%.

I suspect that the reason the footage stood up so well was because most of the compression applied to it was kept in the 1280 X 720 range. I don't know how 1080i footage would fare (due to the drastic re-sizing plus the fact that it's interlaced). I suspect that source footage of 1280 X 720 progressive may prove to be the "sweet spot" for a very good result with YouTube HD.

The preset you use is a good general target for 720 HD upload. I customize things but use the same general target for Vimeo.

You should not have to letterbox though. If you upload square pixels (which HD is), YouTube will add the letterbox. If you add it, you're wasting bits on that black which YouTube will wast further bits to display. Don't letterbox. 1280x720 should be fine. I've been doing 640x360 for SD downconvert for YouTube upload and they look quite good. If your source is Standard Def 16:9 though, you have anamorphic (non square) pixels and you'd need to convert that or YouTube will often squash.

Looks like YouTube is getting closer to an official "launching" their HD, judging by the way they made all the players bigger and in widescreen format.

YouTube - Where the Hell is Matt? (2008) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zlfKdbWwruY&fmt=22)

Major improvement taking some advantage of frame size. In the YouTube display it's not bad at all. I'm still seeing major macroblocking, keyframe jumps, from full screen playback. I wish I could turn off scaling.

What I did is take YouTube page and put it on my 46" 1080p display (DVI to HDMI) and went full screen. It wasn't quite "full screen" (had white left/right boarders) but at that size it was playing at 1080 which is scaled up from the 720. I'd like to see scaling off but at it's "in box" display it certainly looks competitive to Vimeo.

I wonder if they're doing 720p30 (Vimeo does poor frame rate conversion from 30 or 25 to 24).

I wish I could post my own test footage scaled to 720p30 (or maybe even p60) and see how it handles.

BTW that change in player size doesn't seem specific for that demo video.

I'm seeing the new frame size on my own YouTube Channels! KEWL!

It appears as though YouTube keeps 30p, 30p (unlike Vimeo). This is a big leap for YouTube, although Vimeo still has the advantage of downloading the original source file.

youtube is also more picky about what music it will allow anymore... vimeo has yet to catch on I guess. That is a another whole debate but for certain family vids and event videos like riding the dunes... rock and roll is damn near a must.

but this is still very cool!

Here ya go, exact same WMV file on youtube and vimeo...

(lol, ok now it's not private anymore)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mpReusp4Z4c

http://www.vimeo.com/1943374

EDIT: another comparison.. this time, MP4 made just for youtube, and a WMV made just for vimeo.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YoE_2J8xgNc

http://www.vimeo.com/2142077

YouTube now supports video!

Vimeo all the way if you plan to upload videos with devices above cellphones :) I like YouTube for it's popularity, but quality wise...that's a no. As we all know, a picture worth a thousand words, well, compare the videos and Vimeo currently rocks.

I KNOW that not all of us out there can afford more or less pricey HD devices and so on, I understand that and by all means, let everyone enjoy uploading with whatever they can afford to, but DO encourage and offer good quality possibilities for those who can afford good quality SD/HD, get me? :)
I'm not impressed with YouTube's HD mode yet...

Conclusion:
Quality wise, Vimeo is the way.
Exposure wise, YouTube is the way.

yea the difference leans pretty heavy towards vimeo. Even the sound is not as good on youtube. But as least they have closed the gap a little with this upgrade.

I wish they would extend that time limiit to 15 minutes though. I find my HD videos are longer than my old SD vids.

Youtube has always been really picky about which format you use to upload. So it may take a bit of trial and error to find the best HD upload.

Been waiting for this upgrade on YouTube for a long time. Can't wait to get some specs on the best upload format/quality.

YouTube now supports video!
Vimeo all the way if you plan to upload videos with devices above cellphones :) I like
Vimeo doesn't play directly on the iPhone's Safari browser but YouTube does.

looks much more passable when you add &fmt=22 at the end...

YouTube - Team kawasaki out on the town (youtube HD) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oqWaFLRJhuo&fmt=22)

The battle is commencing on Vimeo
Look at this YouTube HD video.
Play it full screen
YouTube - Intel - Touch of Genius HD (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-b1fpn7-c_U&fmt=22)
The solids and subtle gradients hold up very well. I do see aliasing but overall this is quite good. Some tough to compress areas hold up well. This is far superior to the "Matt" video people reference. I still wish I could turn scaling off to see it at 720p rather than 1080. I need to see more "action" video to see how the frame rate is being handled. I'm very impressed with this video. I could use it for online client screening.

Someone on Vimeo posts that it's 2000kbps with peaks at 3500kbps and it's .mp4 (so it must be H264). I think H264 is better than On2VP6 Vimeo uses. I think maybe YouTube MIGHT get this right. I just wish they'd allow for more than 10 minutes. I'd be willing to pay for that. Vimeo charges $60/year now for multiple HD uploads and 2GB per week limit. BTW others examining frame rate and seeing full 30fps (rather than Vimeo's HORRID frame rate conversion to 24fps).

Erik I still see many more issues with the link you posted than the Intel link. In full screen I can spot the keyframes and I can see macroblocking in the gradients.

Here's a good challenge someone did. The material is not the easiest to encode if you know how compression works.
Check both out at full screen. Let them buffer completely first to make sure you don't confusing buffering issues with actual quality.

YouTube - Landing: Success and Failure (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0SDpKpkM0vk&fmt=22)

Landing: Success and Failure on Vimeo (http://www.vimeo.com/1627079)

mine was encoded as a MP4 VBR 4mb average, 14mb peak. Something like 200megs total filesize. I wish those guys would tell us how they encoded theirs.

EDIT: hey the sound is out of sync when you use the &fmt=22 code.. that's not good.

MP4 isn't necessarily H264. MPEG4 part 2 will not look as good as MPEG4 part 10 (AKA AVC, AKA H264) at the same data rate. Also source matters. Source from HDCAM is going to look better than source from HDV. Not all H264 codecs are equal. These days MainConcept seems to be best and Dicas is close behind. Apple, which once lead, is now in third place. The one thing Apple has going for it is that Compressor can do multipass encodes (more than 2 passes) wheras other encoders max at 2 passes. BTW this is one reason why when you "max out" settings in Apple Compressor, H264 encoding can be glacially slow even on an 8 core Mac with 4 virtual clusters. Increasing B frames (turning on frame reording in Compressor) can improve allocation of bits but it increases decode burden (complexity for viewing CPU/GPU). It might give them a better file to encode though since the "tough parts" or going to be allocated more bits (look better) on the encoded file you upload.

Always target frame size and frame rate they're playing back. Don't let their "fast" encode do scaling or frame rate conversion. You can do slower better scaling to 720p30 for YouTube upload. Max the file size. Make sure your file is as close to YouTube's 1GB max as possible. Throw as much data as possible at them. Your upload should be near 1GB and not 200mb.

Keep your source as noise free as possible. Encoders throw out repeated pixels and save delta (change/random) pixels. Encoding acts as a noise amplifier. Kill noise. It may mean bringing down noisy grays to noiseless blacks. Sometimes black restore in your compression app can help although I think it's better to do it in your NLE or Coloring app.

Keeping that pixel change is saved and repeated elements are tossed, locked down camera is going to be a major improvement over even slight motion in hand held. All that exaggerates compression artifacts as the encoder uses bits to preserve motion.

There's probably more tips I can think of as time goes on

mine was encoded as a MP4 VBR 4mb average, 14mb peak. Something like 200megs total filesize. I wish those guys would tell us how they encoded theirs.

EDIT: hey the sound is out of sync when you use the &fmt=22 code.. that's not good.

alright try this one... MP4 (main concept from Vegas 8.1) VBR 20mb peak, 10mb average. It wouldn't let me do a 2 pass render.

I think it came out better. I sure the sound is messed up as I didn't change the settings for that.

YouTube - Carving Jack HD (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gAzVgBlMiCM&fmt=22)

Youtube is now capable of of showing 720p-content. If there's a 720p-version of a particular clip, you have to append &fmt=22 to the url to see it.
Here is an example I shot with my ex1:
YouTube - Filips Diplomkonzert (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EXkKe_66hFo&fmt=22)

sounds great! & looks great as well! gotta say... I'm a little surprised w/ youtube!

I uploaded my first 720p file to Youtube yesterday as a test. Went smoothly, and looks very good. This takes Youtube from a toy to a legit contender for shorts for me. And no pesky "upload one HD file a week" stuff like Vimeo. Though I do really like Vimeo.

Good stuff from Youtube!

If YouTube keeps it free with unlimited uploads, that will really hurt Vimeo and their silly Plus service...

The only issue with Youtube, is the 10 minute length limit. For those doing longer-form projects like I have to do, it's a huge limitation. For basic shorts, or other fun things, it's just fine.

Good to see EX1 720p video on YouTube. Thanks for that.

Right now Vimeo has the advantage in
No 10 minute limit.
Ability to download source.
Ability to password protect file as needed.

YouTube Advantage
720p30 vs Vimeo 720p24
No limit to HD uploads compared to 1 per week for Vimeo free.
No per week upload limit compared to 500MB for Vimeo free and 2GB for Vimeo Plus $60.
YouTube's 1GB file upload limit means you can upload a higher data rate single file than with Vimeo free's 500MB for the entire week.
YouTube generally will mean your file will get more views due to discovery.

I think YouTube has the lead.

you don't need &fmt=22 anymore. They have a "Watch in HD" link on the bottom of the video now. Oh and I found out even though you pay for have 2 gb per week on vimeo, no single file can be larger than 1gb.

So what I'm seeing is that some videos have Normal and High Quality and others have Normal and HD. Basically they all have Normal Quality and the other setting is either Hight Quality or HD depending on the file uploaded.

So if the video is HD it will be offered as an option. No special code needed. Thanks for spotting that.

you don't need &fmt=22 anymore. They have a "Watch in HD" link on the bottom of the video now. Oh and I found out even though you pay for have 2 gb per week on vimeo, no single file can be larger than 1gb.

Dang that is the sharpest thing I've ever seen on Youtube. Now I just need FiOS for the extra bandwidth and life will be grand indeed.

Verizon FiOS - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verizon_FiOS)

Noah